Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from November, 2012

Bumbler in a Bubble Home for Retirement

It looks like a Singapore bumbler is in the making or we may already have one.
After reading the Bloomberg’s report “Lee Rues Singapore as Retirement Home Unless Birthrate Rises”, we could find some similarities comparing with another article “Ma the bumbler” by The Economist. 
The Economist has called President Ma a Bumbler recently due to his indecisiveness or inaction. In Taiwan, newspapers there translated the word ‘bumbler’ as ‘stupid’. A check with the web has the following meaning for “bumbler”:  Someone who makes mistakes because of incompetencehttp://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bumbler
PM Lee Hsein Loong spoke to Bloomberg about the property market but he took no action even he recognised it was a bubble. He said there were difficult trade-offs to encourage people to have more babies but our birth rate had been declining since 1987. Is he still waiting to see the trade-offs? It proves that economic growth is the always the key in Singapore and only now he realises hav…

罢工暴露了行动党的困境,困惑和僵硬

对于惯于争取自身利益的中国人来说,持续的同工不同酬,当然会演变成地铁公司巴士司机罢工事件。问题是面对这样不对等的待遇,行动党政府明明知道迟早会发生罢工,为何没有及时采取行动,避免事情的发生。难道,政府有意让事情恶化,将人民一将,教训人民。
还是,这就是行动党的现状:在治国路上,出现瓶颈。因此,在国人,世人面前暴露出一幅无所适从的困境,困惑和缺少处事的灵活性。
我们比较相信后者,教训人民的代价很高,万一处理不好,行动党政府就得提早毕业了。
去年大选过后,选民已经向行动党表示应该限制外来人口,增加本地人的就业机会。同时,政府需要区分本地人和外地人的不同贡献,本地人的权利,和提高低收入人士的待遇。贫富的差距扩大,基本生活费用的高涨,屋价的飞扬,世界经济放缓,这些大问题都压向行动党。而要解决这些大问题,过去50年来成功的经济政策,就必须重新思考,甚至还要开倒车,走不一样的路。
什么叫做开倒车?就是以人为本,服务人民。例如:居者有其屋,建屋局的目的已经背离原本的目标很远了,从提供价廉物美的组屋,发展到以盈利为目的。又如教育,大学学位不足,学校为奖学金得奖者而设。但是,行动党政府有可能开倒车吗?为人民提供廉价组屋和大众教育吗?
因为,它整天说没钱,或许已经把钱花在不知道什么地方了(虽然名义上我们的外汇储备丰富)。如果,要提供高质价廉的组屋,教育,医药等等服务,唯一的方法,就是增加税收。增加税率,在行动党看来,不只是国人不喜欢,外国投资就不会来了,这样一来,新加坡经济就推不动了。
所以,现在我们看到行动党政府的疲态,做得好辛苦。因为,以前一党独大好办事,想怎么做就怎么做,不需要做好好先生,要高经济增长,就高增长,需要人力,就进口。贫富差距没问题,高薪才能留住人才,无能低教育的人理应得低收入,再不好好工作,就用外劳代替。
经济困境 我国低收入人群10几年来一直处于没有加薪的持续性零增长的状态。行动党政府不以为然。不但认为这么做是对的,甚至,在无法继续协助企业降低工资成本时,还同意让企业引进外劳,进一步降低成本。无形中,进一步把低收入人士的薪金拉低。
这么做,导致一个比一个来得低。本地人收入低,不要做就引进外人。当然,外人的薪金必须比新加坡来得更低。地铁巴士司机就是一个例子。新加坡司机低,马来西亚司机低些,中国司机更低。
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=7866
这个情形和美国…

No Blue Or Red In A White Dream of Freak Election

The PAP is getting worry so do PM Lee Hsien Loong.They begin to see their future either in blue or red and there is no white. So in their dream, there is no snow white but only colourful pictures of blue, red, pink, yellow and others.Is this possible: a Singapore with no men in white? It must be a freak election as Singaporeans are doing the unthinkable as claimed by Lee senior.
Freak or not freak, we are seeing more colours in Singapore politics.  The PAP is day dreaming if it continues to think Singapore is still a ‘white’ land.
"If Singapore had a blue constituency and a red constituency, I think Singapore will be in trouble," …..
"We have tried to make sure that all our constituencies are about the same colour … because we want all the constituencies to share the same interests. Then we can think together and when you represent Singapore, you represent the whole of Singapore."http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC121124-0000068/Spore-cant-go-down-red-vs-blue-…

面对冷漠无感,选区如何划分?个人信息如何保护?

面对冷漠无感的选民,行动党在选区划分上,如何做到尽善尽美,确保胜选优势?在执行选区划分时,又如何确保个人信息受到保护?个人隐私有所保障?
国会在10月份,已经通过相关法案,因此,个人信息保护法令即将实施,但是这应该不会对选区划分造成任何影响。因为,这个法令只是涉及私人领域,政府部门不受影响#1。
所以,信息保护法令不会影响行动党每次大选前的前期工作:单选区和集选区的重新划分。这个由行动党主导的选区划分,次次都被在野党批评,是行动党胜选的准备工作,为行动党铺路,争取好成绩。
看来也的确如此。
以下举1988和1991,四个单选区的情形说明一下。为何巴耶利峇单选区在1991年的大选被取消。如果,没有被取消,在野党候选人中选的机会几乎是100%,怪只怪在1988年,巴耶利峇选民强出头,过早的暗示这个选区行动党的优势不再。
19881991年大选四个单选区的在野党战绩:
巴耶利峇 义顺中 武吉甘柏 后港 1988 47.6% 42.4%@ 46.5% 41% 1991

Will emotionless Singaporeans give Dr Chee Soon Juan a chance in Parliament 2016?

Yes if you are in the cycle of social media. No if you are on the side of main stream media. So, what is the chance of Dr Chee Soon Juan getting your votes in 2016?
By the probability of throwing a coin, it is 50:50. The chance right now is perhaps below 50% as his constituency groundwork has yet to begin. We have to assess his new ‘emotion’ in the next few years and re-rate his chances.
Let’s be very clear that less emotion does not mean less rational.  Singapore voters are calculative and they want to have both economic growth and democracy, just like they want upgrading with government subsidy plus oppositions in the parliament. When they know they can’t have both, they will make the best choice for themselves, for example Aljunied GRC.
Singapore ranks as the most emotionless society in the world, beating out Georgia, Lithuania, and Russia. Singaporeans are unlikely to report feelings of anger, physical pain, or other negative emotions. They’re not laughing a lot, either. “If you meas…

罚款随物价房价而涨 一流教育如何教这门课?

通货膨胀导致物价房价高涨,政府顺水推舟,从明年三月开始,加重罚款,提高对乱扔垃圾行为的罚款额,其中对首次违规的人处罚从300元提高到500元。
样样东西都起价,从小贩中心到购物中心,从汽车到房子,罚款如果不涨,还真对不起这个资本主义的自由运作程序。但是,在这种背景下,我们要如何打造下一代,要如何教育未来的主人翁?涨价会不会把他们的玩具给挤掉?我们的世界一流教育体系要如何教导孩子而不让他们失去童贞?
罚款涨价增加,一跳就跳了200元。以百分比来说,就是67% (200:300)。以通货膨胀的水准来说,这已经是高度通货膨胀了。这好像组屋,公寓的涨价一样,动不动就是几十巴仙的上涨,如果你是受薪人士,老板会不会给你几十巴仙的加薪?
深一层的想,这个做法是贪财还是公道?法律面前人人平等,犯法要受到同样的处罚。富人罚500元,穷人也一样500元。但是,一个月入不到千元的人,就是他的50%的薪水。而一个月入万元的人,则只不过是5%,最妙的是,在创新会计下,富人还可能把罚款当成成本开支化掉。
因此,有些国家,已经开始以另一种“公平”方式来处罚人们。就是根据你的收入来交罚款。收入高,就交高的罚款,收入低,就交低的罚款。报纸不是曾经报道,在瑞士有富人因为开快车,而要交上万元的罚款。
但是,这样做在新加坡这样讲效率的国家,是很不实际的。法官还要调查触犯法律的背景,收入情形,这样不是很麻烦吗?500元不是简单的多了。
但是,为何收钱不说麻烦,而给钱给以所谓的医药津贴,老人津贴,却要mean testing,要调查家庭背景。既然如此,为了公平起见,看来不管是政府收钱也好,给钱也好,调查一下个人,家庭背景,再给于公平的处罚和津贴,才合乎人人平等的原则。
除非,很不幸的,乱抛垃圾的人就只是集中在低收入的一群人身上。这么一来,我们的教育真的很失败,为何低收入的人就是乱抛垃圾的人,而政府在无法教育好他们后,就只有加重罚款来对付这群不幸的人。这真是法家精神的再现。
利用罚款来对付乱抛垃圾的人,在新加坡已经很久了。不只是乱抛垃圾,其他罚款也很多,因此新加坡早于是世界上闻名的罚款fine国家。到底,我们是以罚款作为一个教育手段,还是警惕兼收入的手段?
一流的教育制度,为何无法提升品德?
新加坡自认和公认有着世界第一流的教育制度。好多国家都向我们学习,如何把数理化教好,但是,就没与听说他们向我们学习如何把品德教好,把传统文化…

Does full retirement of Hu Jintao mean anything to the PAP and our Parliament?

Even Hu Jintao dares to do it, why the PAP old guards still feel the uncertainty? Hu made history in the recently concluded party congress of Chinese Communist Party for leadership renewal. He stepped down from the important posts of party chief and military head - not to forget China is a nuclear power and is modernising its forces.
One important factor of recent Chinese politics has been that even when the Chinese leadership retire, they still exert a phenomenal amount of power. This looks similar to Singapore.  When Goh Chok Tong became Prime Minister, he needed a senior minister. When Lee Hsien Loong took over the PM post, he needed two.
Only last year, after the general election, the PAP felt they had to face the reality and decided to let go the SM, MM, and 2 unpopular ministers.  However, is this arrangement a ‘full retirement’ of former ministers?
No. They are still collecting pay checks from the Parliament.  They may not have influences over government policies, however, they ar…